Practice question
Congress inserts into a general appropriations bill a freestanding provision permanently amending an unrelated regulatory statute. The provision has no specific relationship to any appropriation and is not a genuine condition on spending an item. The President timely vetoes it while approving the funding items. Advisers claim no provision can ever be separately vetoed. Under PHILCONSA, what is the best response?
- The advisers are correct because every provision is immune from item veto
- The President may veto it solely because every disliked condition is removable
- The President must first spend all appropriations before acting
- The provision is immune because it is printed in the budget bill
- The inappropriate-provision doctrine permits treating such unrelated substantive legislation as an item for veto purposes
Legal references
- 1987 Constitution, Article VI, Section 27, presidential veto, period, override and item veto: https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocs/3/353
- Philippine Constitution Association v. Enriquez, G.R. Nos. 113105, 113174, 113766 and 113888, August 19, 1994, main decision, item veto and appropriate versus inappropriate provisions: https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1994/aug1994/gr_113105_1994.html
- 1987 Constitution, Article VI, Section 25(2), provisions in the general appropriations bill: https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocs/3/353
Answer this question in flashcards to review your response and continue practicing.